This is on a tip from Dr. Leif Svalgaard, WUWT’s resident solar expert. It was just published in the journal Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, and is open access. I found this study’s conclusion a bit amusing, because there are numerous claims that solar activity (and the slight increase in TSI seen in the last 30 years) can’t explain the global warming we’ve seen, but yet somehow the recent period of low solar activity can explain the pause, and when solar activity resumes, global warming will return anew. Dr Svalgaard gives the author, Peter Stauning, high marks for his work in general, but disagrees with him on this paper.

I’m also more than a little bit puzzled how the journal editor and the peer reviewers let this sentence pass, everybody makes typos, but this one takes the cake. I kid you not:

But secondly, there must be a fair global coverage such that localized climate variations like the North-Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), or the El Ninjo/La Ninja in the Pacific would not affect the result too much.

The question whether human activities seriously affect climate is asked with increasing voice these days. Quite understandable since the climate appears to be out of control with the significant global temperature increases already seen during the last three decades and with still heavier temperature increases to come in the future according to prognoses, among others, in the recent comprehensive IPCC reports [1].

However, the most recent climate data [2], show global temperature development levelling off or even turning negative since 2001 in contrast to the anticipated course related to the steady increases in the concentration in the atmosphere of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane [1]. The purpose of this communication is to demonstrate that the reduced rate in the global temperature rise complies with expectations related to the decaying level of solar activity according to the relation published in an earlier analysis [3]. Without the reduction in the solar activity-related contributions the global temperatures would have increased steadily from 1980 to present.

Introduction

The alarming rise in global temperatures from about 1980 to 2000 gave much concern around possible serious future climate changes, global warming, that could result from the increasing levels of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. However, as shown in [2] the strong rise in global temperatures faded after year 2000 and was replaced by a rather steady level or even small decreases in the global temperatures from around 2001 to present (2013). This development took away some of the incitement to cut down on human-induced growth in greenhouse gasses.

The question is now whether the present fading of the temperature rise is related to the concurrent decrease in solar activity scaled, for instance, by the sunspot numbers. Scientists have linked past climate changes to solar activity. The so-called “Little Ice Age” in the 17’th century was linked to the Maunder minimum in solar activity by [4]. Many later works have linked climate changes to changes in solar activity (see reviews [5,6]).

In the earlier analysis [3] from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) a quantitative assessment was made of the relation between solar activity represented by the cycle-average sunspot numbers and the terrestrial climate represented by the global temperatures averaged over the same interval length but delayed by 3 years. In the present communication the anticipated effects of the developments in solar activity on the recent global temperature changes are analyzed.

2. Sunspots and Global Temperatures

The former analysis [3] and the present work assume that solar activity can be represented through the classical international sunspot number SSN = k·(s + 10·g), where s is the number of sunspots, g the number of sunspot groups while k is a calibration parameter to ensure that different observatories derive the same sunspot number regardless of observational qualities. A discussion of this index and of modified versions of the sunspot number is provided by [7]. The sunspot number is used here rather than satellite-based observations of solar radiation be- cause of the extended length of the time interval of available data.

…

Presently (2013) we are about 4 years into cycle 24. Figure 1also displays the extensions through 1.5 years derived at SIDC with different models (kfsm “clas- sical standard” and kfcm “combined” models). The fig- ure, furthermore, displays the predictions prepared by the Australian IPS Radio and Space Services [10] and the NASA solar cycle 24 predictions [11] as of October 2013.

The mean of the two SIDC extrapolations [8] 1.5 years ahead as well as the NASA prediction places the maxi- mum of cycle 24 in mid-2013. The currently observed and predicted sunspot numbers makes this sunspot cycle the weakest since cycle 14 which had a maximum in the smoothed data of 64.2 in February of 1906. When final sunspot data become available they may turn out still lower to make cycle 24 even weaker than cycle 14.

Sunspot numbers have been reconstructed back to around 1850 with quite good accuracy based on as- tronomers’ careful and detailed recordings of the ap- pearance of the solar surface. The yearly sunspot num- bers since 1850 available from SIDC [8] are shown by the thin blue line in the bottom panel of Figure2. The extension shown by the dashed line from present through the remaining solar cycle 24 to 2020 is based on the mean of the IPS [10] and the NASA [11] predictions.

The bottom panel of Figure2also displays the averages of sunspot number from minimum to minimum (usual solar cycle) marked by squares and from maxi- mum in a cycle to maximum in the next cycle marked by filled circles.

…

The top panel of Figure2displays global temperature variations since 1850 through the deviations from aver- age level 1961-1990.

…

Presently, the series are extended up to October 2013 and comprise the combined land-surface/sea-surface global temperature series, HadCRUT-4gl [2], shown in the up- per panel of Figure 2, which is used here for the analyses. For the discussions here it should be noted that following

the steep rise between 1980 and 2000, the global average temperatures flatten out after year 2000. The extension of the temperatures beyond present shown by the dashed line represents the average of global temperatures from 2001 to 2013.

3. Relations between Solar Activity and Global Temperature

It should be recalled that solar activity-related changes in global temperatures must arrive after the activity changes. The former DMI analysis [3] examined the correlation between sunspots and global temperatures for the interval from 1850 to 1980 and derived a value of 3 years for the delay that provided optimum correlation. In Figure2the cycle-average global temperatures are presented by the squares and filled circles, respectively, for the min-to- min and max-to-max intervals shifted 3 years.

The averaging presented in Figure2over min-to-min or max-to-max solar cycle intervals delayed by 3 years include years beyond present for the last two points. In the summations a reference value equal to the mean value of global temperatures from 2001 to 2013 has been substituted for values beyond 2013. Error bars extending from the two points represent the results obtained with global temperatures beyond 2013 systematically defined 0.1˚C higher or lower than the reference value.

In Figure3the individual cycle values of the sunspot number, SSNA, averaged over either min-to-min or max- to-max intervals of the solar cycle (appr. 11 years) and the change in global temperatures, ΔTA, averaged over the same interval length but delayed by 3 years, are shown by filled squares and circles, respectively. This way of averaging reduces the scatter and makes it easier to se the persistent relation between sunspots and global tempera tures. The relation was found statistically in the former analysis [3] to be: ΔTA = 0.009 (±0.002)·SSNA − 0.70˚C.

…

6. Conclusions

The decaying solar activity makes the recently recorded global temperatures flatten out and thus disguises the real climate development. With a steady level of cycle-average solar activity the global temperatures would have shown a steady rise from 1980 to present (2013) in agreement with the increasing atmospheric concentrations of green-house gasses, primarily carbon dioxide and methane [16], and not the levelling-off actually observed since 2001.

The solar activity is now at the lowest level seen in the past 100 years and could not go much lower. Thus, the observed global temperatures may soon resume the steady rise observed from around 1980 to 2001. If solar activity starts increasing then the global temperatures may rise even steeper than that seen over the past three decades.

“The former DMI analysis [3] examined the correlation between sunspots and global temperatures for the interval from 1850 to 1980 and derived a value of 3 years for the delay that provided optimum correlation. ”
But we are also told in a primer on global warming aka climate change that “The reason the planet takes several decades to respond to increased CO2 is the thermal inertia of the oceans. ”
So which is it, several years or several decades? Also doesn’t solar shortwave warm the oceans more effectively that longwave from increased CO2? So there should be more lag more solar than from CO2…

That is a significant error. Makes me wonder if anyone actually read it for review. You don’t miss stuff like that in review. You just don’t. C’mon man! ……
Do we have a case of PAL review here or what?

I am of the opinion that the sun’s activity dominates the climate on earth. Why? It is blatantly obvous. Night temps verses day temps. I get evidence nearly every day. It is hotter when the sun is out.
What I don’t see is a salient model for the immediate pause in warming though it seems that it must originate in the earth-sun energy exchange.
I don’t see it.

Looking at Global Warming is REAL but NOT a Big DEAL: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/
and this article, yes there’s reason to believe that a drop in solar activity will cause a drop in temperature, but the reverse should also be true. If we are entering a “mini-ice age” due to a Dalton Minimum type of solar reduction, once we exit this, we still won’t see that major rise predicted by the IPCC.

I haven’t done a detailed read of AR5 yet, but the SOD said that temps would only vary by about 0.1 degrees due to solar activity. So… did they change their minds in the final draft? Or is this paper saying that AR5 is wrong?
Either way, a comparison from 1850 on? Are they serious? Line up a few centuries of sun spot data and a few centuries of ice core data, and I bet the correlation goes POOF! and disappears.

“solar activity (and the slight increase in TSI seen in the last 30 years) can’t explain the global warming we’ve seen, but yet somehow the recent period of low solar activity can explain the pause…”
They want to have their cake and eat it too.

We are at the top of the solar cycle. How can the top of the solar cycle produce cooling?
TSI is currently about 0.7 W/m2 higher than the low point of the previous solar cycles so this paper must be designed to “communicate” to the followers.

“The solar activity is now at the lowest level seen in the past 100 years and could not go much lower. Thus, the observed global temperatures may soon resume the steady rise observed from around 1980 to 2001.”
—
How do they know that solar activity “could not go much lower” based on just the past 100 years? That’s just a blink in history. Is there any scientific basis for assuming the past 100 years represents the lowest lows solar activity is capable of?

davidmhoffer says:
January 13, 2014 at 5:40 pm
I haven’t done a detailed read of AR5 yet, but the SOD said that temps would only vary by about 0.1 degrees due to solar activity. So… did they change their minds in the final draft? Or is this paper saying that AR5 is wrong?
Ooops, I forgot part 2 of my question.
And if this paper is right, then this is yet another paper showing that the models are wrong?

Let’s be clear here: warming needs to do a *lot* more than return to it’s general rate since 1980. In order to catch back up to warming predictions, it needs to go significantly *faster* than that, and that increased pace needs to be *sustained* not transient due to increased solar activity.
Even if this is right, which is highly questionable, it is far from rescuing the model projections.

Of course, Ninjo and Ninja are transliterations of the Spanish words as they would be spelt in any if a number of northern or eastern scripts of the Latin alphabet. Google accepts these spellings implicitly. (Try it!) That I am a theoretical linguist might bias my eye, but this is not only no serious error, it is no error at all. Back to the contents….

More proof that the models are wrong. The “AGW will return” part was thrown in at the last minute so years of hard research didn’t get tossed into the rubbish bin. Also, the La Ninja effect is almost impossible to observe, I personally believe the effect is hiding in the deep ocean, fighting with the missing heat.

Anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to explain away ‘the pause’ without admitting climate sensitivity to GHG forcing is probably pretty low. The simplest answer is the most likely: climate sensitivity is far lower than the climate modelers have calculated (probably about half), so natural variation is easily able to dominate GHG driven warming for decadal and longer periods.
I wonder if many climate scientists, like the author of this paper, realize that they would be better off just accepting low climate sensitivity as most likely correct and then moving on? Insisting on high climate sensitivity in the face of clear and ever growing contrary evidence simply discredits them as scientists. Heck, it discredits them as people capable of rational thought. Climate sensitivity is most likely low… get over it.

Anthony quotes “the El Ninjo/La Ninja in the Pacific would not affect the result too much.”
That statement makes a joke of the whole paper. Clearly they have no idea what the impacts of El Nino/La Nina might be because the’re not even familiar enough with them to spell them right…and yet they made the statement. Unbelievable.

I think we can all guess what is going to happen next as a result of this study. Climate alarmists will use it as cover to come out of their hiding places to tell us how lucky we are that the Sun has given us this temporary reprieve from warming. But we must use this time to make drastic cuts to our carbon output, or we are all doomed!

“The question is now whether the present fading of the temperature rise is related to the concurrent decrease in solar activity scaled, for instance, by the sunspot numbers.”
I find it interesting that researchers with a CAGW bent refuse to use the term “cooling” when describing the last 17 years (or that the lack of warming goes back further than 2001). “Fading of the temperature rise.” That IS a very graceful euphemism, I must admit. Bonus points for creativity.

Whether or not AGW returns the end of the interglacial cannot be avoided. It is a matter of when not if. If one agrees with Zeng 2007, ever tree planted to “mitigate Co2” speeds the inevitable end. We have met the enemy …

Agree with Louis.
Maybe they mean that during the last minimum, some months passed with hardly any sunspots and we can’t bottom out less than 0 during a minimum. However, I don’t see why maximums can’t be substantially lower yet or the sun going without sunspots for years if the geomagnetic field gets much lower.
Like many others, they overlook the fact that CO2’s greenhouse gas warming effect is exerted in logarithmic fashion as concentrations increase in the atmosphere.http://www.junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/co2greenhouse-X4.png
We’re at 400 ppm CO2 right now and from here on up, that warming curve continues to flatten!
Who the heck knows what the sun will be doing in 10 years. It could become more active or less active. To me, this study is mainly stating that the sun, at times can be at least as powerful as CO2’s effect. Since we have no idea what the sun will be doing in 20 or 50 years(or even 10 years) despite the really silly statement that it can’t go lower, then, knowing that the unpredictable sun has maybe a 50% chance of offsetting ALL the warming from CO2 and the warming curve flattens as CO2 increases, then why would we spend trillions of dollars and take extreme actions if one side is admitting that the unpredictable sun has this much power and has a good chance of being in the drivers seat.
Should the position be “we need to act now, in case the sun becomes active again?”
If the sun stopped the warming for over a decade, which is their position, then if they were to admit that it actually could get weaker would be promoting no action because an even weaker sun and the consequences being global cooling, would suggest no need for any action regarding CO2 at this time.
In fact, based on their analysis, if the sun would get weaker yet(which they assume won’t happen) then increasing CO2 to balance the suns cooling effect would be something desirable.
After all, humans know what the right temperature of the planet should be…………………which apparently is just a tad cooler than where we are today but not falling slightly like in the 50’s-70’s because that makes humans fret that another Ice Age might be coming.

Quite understandable since the climate appears to be out of control with the significant global temperature increases already seen during the last three decades and with still heavier temperature increases to come in the future according to prognoses, among others, in the recent comprehensive IPCC reports

Oh, right. Because before the last three decades we had the climate completely under control.
Of course, when he says “prognoses” he really means digital entrails.
And that’s the news from planet Alarmia in the 97th Dimension.

“Dr Svalgaard gives the author, Peter Stauning, high marks for his work in general, but disagrees with him on this paper.”
What is the substantive disagreement? Is it that Leif doesn’t think that the global temperature anomaly is correlated with sunspot numbers? That would accord with his view that TSI has not varied much in the era of satellite observations and perhaps never has. But that would not exclude other physical coupling relationships between sunspot numbers and earth’s climate.

El Ninjo/La Ninja is just an English spelling for El Niño/La Niña. Sort of like, for a German word, writing Tuebingen for Tübingen. It’s not a typo.
Get with it!!
REPLY: Fake dude, I challenge you to find any climate science paper written in English that uses your imagined variance.
Until then when you can present such evidence, kindly stifle yourself. Get with it then. – Anthony

If Dr Svalgaard gave high marks for his work here, its very much an “academic” grade meaning he understands the tools but clearly still lacks the common sense of how to use them. Even Foster and Rahmstorf, who jacked up solar to help explain the pause didn’t go so far. They just did it then sat back to enjoy the bourhaha it created while counting new grants coming in the door.
this is the basic problem. Grants are not given for quality results they are given to support political initiatives. Who is going to be the “Thomas Nast” that cleans this misappropriation of authority and taxpayer dollars up?.

bones says:
January 13, 2014 at 6:53 pmWhat is the substantive disagreement? Is it that Leif doesn’t think that the global temperature anomaly is correlated with sunspot numbers? That would accord with his view that TSI has not varied much in the era of satellite observations and perhaps never has. But that would not exclude other physical coupling relationships between sunspot numbers and earth’s climate.
There is no doubt that the sunspot cycle has a 0.1C cycleic climate response. It is not known if there is a much larger long-term ‘background’ variation which could have impact on the climate; personally I think there is no such background, buy see my discussion herehttp://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf
The ‘other’ mechanisms are just straws to grasp at IMHO, but proponents will of course reach for any straw, no matter how weak.

Paul Westhaver says:
January 13, 2014 at 5:31 pm
“I am of the opinion that the sun’s activity dominates the climate on earth. Why? It is blatantly obvous. Night temps verses day temps. I get evidence nearly every day. It is hotter when the sun is out.”
It is the Earth’s orbital parameters that dominate the climate on Earth. Is the Sun less active during the night? Is the Sun more active during the day? Does the Sun become less active during NH winter? Does the Sun become more active during NH summer?
Of course not. By the way, it will be warmer tonight here in my area than it will be during the day on Wednesday. It’s called weather.

James at 48 at 1838 today — Re: “Whether or not AGW returns… .”
What never was cannot return. The AGW conjecture is utterly, completely, and for all time dead (moreover, it was never alive).CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
Game over.
***********************************************************
Re: Bones at 6:53pm, today: “Is it that Leif doesn’t think that the global temperature anomaly is correlated with sunspot numbers? … But that would not exclude other physical coupling relationships between sunspot numbers and earth’s climate.”
I’m sure Dr. Svalgaard will make an appearance to speak for himself before long, but, in the meantime…. I think he would say:
Yes, there is correlation, not always strong. More significantly, correlation is not causation.
One of the many papers Svalgaard has written which may be helpful here:http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.ppt
********************************************
@ P@t Dolan — glad to see you again, sailor man. In port for the winter? Hope all is well. Re: creative writing, you should know (NOT sarcasm).

“Books are read, the sky is blue; el Ninjo is hot, la Ninja so cool…”
To some other critiquers: to me, the abstract read as if written by a scholar in other than his native language (some of the sentences seemed a bit pedantically dense; similar to many papers I’ve read in English from people studing ESL–or in many cases, third or fourth language). If so, it’s that much more impressive, regardless the conclusions, no? I know a woman did her B.A. in Warsaw in her native tongue, her Masters in Leipzig in German, and her PhD in English in Australia. That I don’t agree with most of her theories—and since I was only married to the one with the degrees in Applied Linguistics, my opinion was frequenly overlooked, and the band played on….doesn’t lessen my admiration (and envy) of her scholarship!
Still, let’s preserve, just a little longer, the absurd vision of el Ninjo and la Ninja, dicing up the Climate…
@Janice Moore:
Greetings!

According to Wikipedia: “NinJo is a meteorological software system. It is a community project of the German Weather Service, the Meteorological Service of Canada, the Danish Meteorological Institute, MeteoSwiss, and the German Bundeswehr.”
See, he does know what he is talking about; el Nijo is about the weather.

Janice Moore says:
January 13, 2014 at 7:34 pm(I blush and quietly slip out the back door…).
But you are perfectly correct: correlation is not causation, but seems to be necessary if causation is claimed.

Looking at the bright side (no pun intended), this paper says nature swamps the effect of additional CO2. Now, when the sun “perks up”, maybe more episodes of El Niño will coincide to help “prove” his point. If not, his hypothesis will probably fall to the big ninja of science history.

@Janice Moore:
In homeport for the duration. Thinking of south seas and rum punch… Experiencing serious CAGW, I’m told: it was a chilly 6 degrees F here, last Monday, and today it was 60! Omidog! A rise with a factor of 10 in a week!! At that rate, the seas will all boil by the end of the month! We’ll have droughts AND floods and Category 10 (we’ll skip right past 6-9) Hurricanes and tornadoes the size of the “Polar Vortex” (what a cool name!)—in fact the “Polar Vortex WAS a tornado! Honest! And if you don’t believe me, I have a hockey stick to prove it!
Hype?! You ain’t SEEN hype yet! When people thought (hoped) Al Gore was lost in a blizzard after the record cold in Copenhagen…THAT was hype. THIS!! THIS is Legendary! Biblical! Epic!
(I don’t know how John Cook does it. Do you know how much work creative lying is…?)
Regarding the sun’s contributions to the Earth’s temperature…Didn’t I read somewhere that the the mean global temp of Mars increased a degree or two centigrade over the last 30-40 years? If so, was that too a result of AGW?

I received an Email a while back and SIDC states that this last century was the most accurate sunspot count at about 95%. Previous years are not so good due to some bickering between a couple of scientists.
One gets back better picture of sunspot activity if one takes their chart and stretches out a bit. That is the best way to judge a cycle. It shows more characteristics of the 11 year average cycle.
Two things we need to think about is in the Last 314 years of sunspot activity since the Mini-Ice age is how much accumulated heat is retained during a minimum beginning with the early 1800 minimum and the stronger minimum that took place in the latter part of the 1800s and early 1900s.
The difference is the earth had a kick start for the 20th century in terms of temperature. Now, we are in a minimum that has only begun to show its secrets.
The second item is the fault of most researchers. They study a slice of history without going back to the last Ice Age and come forward with a better picture of what is going on.
Where there pulses before and why?
Paul Pierett

The paper is interesting but it also contains the demonstration of its limits not noted by the author. Unfortunately Anthony forget to show their figure 4 that is where their argument stands and falls down.
In their figure 4 they “correct” the temperature record by taking off their evaluated solar signature and claim that since 1980 the temperature goes up as expected from the the anthropogenic GHG as assumed by the IPCC. Nothing new, also my models would show that.
The problem, however, is how correct their model is compared to mine, for example.
The problem is that their figure 4 does not show only a steady increase since 1980. It shows also a rapid increase from 1920 to 1940 and a very strong deep cooling from 1940 to 1970. This pattern cannot be explained by anthropogenic forcing.
The problem is always the same. When one proposes a model to try to fix a problem, another problem is made even worst.
The solution of the problem should reconstruct correctly all patterns, not just one by making others even worst.
So, what is wrong in the paper? Very likely what is wrong is their claim that solar activity is represented only by the sunspot number record (their figure 2), which more or less represents Leif’s flat solar model.
Solar forcings with different patterns than the sunspot number record alone must be considered as studied in numerous other papers.
For example see here:
Scafetta, N. 2013. Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles. Earth-Science Reviews 126, 321-357.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825213001402http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model_1

…
I find it interesting that researchers with a CAGW bent refuse to use the term “cooling” when describing the last 17 years (or that the lack of warming goes back further than 2001). “Fading of the temperature rise.” That IS a very graceful euphemism, I must admit. Bonus points for creativity.

That’s because those involved work vey hard to be politically correct, rather than scientifically accurate.

My dear Pat Dolan,
I was away for a bit writing an e mail — that is ALL. Heh, heh. Glad you are safely in port (and with a whole holdful of sea yarns, of course). Thanks for responding.
Re: “Regarding the sun’s contributions to the Earth’s temperature… .”
The Sun maintains the Earth’s homeostasis with very slight fluctuations. Other forces, e.g., oceans, drive climate changes. An imperfect analogy is this: When a violinist plays Beethoven’s Romance in F Major (aah, lovely — I’m playing it right now), the violinist’s heart, with minor fluctuations, keeps the body alive and, thus, the music flowing. It is the muscles, however, which cause the tone, dynamics, and tempo changes in the music. If the violinist’s heart suddenly stopped beating, the music would stop, but, the changes while the music was playing were not caused by the beating of the heart.
Re: the “kalte sun,” we must be careful not to rest our arguments against AGW (which was dead-on-arrival and now, beyond ALL DOUBT, dead) on a foundation of sand (so far as current knowledge of the Sun goes). There simply is not a wide enough fluctuation in TSI (or whatever sun “activity” measure is used) to created the climate shifts observed historically. There will, inevitably, come a time when the Sun is kalte, yet, temperatures are relatively high or, vice versa, a time when the Sun is “active,” yet the temperatures are relatively low. At this point, we don’t know enough to conclude that the Sun does more than maintain climate homeostasis.
There! That was a big long “my two cents-worth.”
Thanks for “coming back” with some chit chat — fun!
Your WUWT pal,
Janice

Nicola Scafetta says:
January 13, 2014 at 8:10 pmSo, what is wrong in the paper? Very likely what is wrong is their claim that solar activity is represented only by the sunspot number record (their figure 2), which more or less represents Leif’s flat solar model.
Solar forcings with different patterns than the sunspot number record alone must be considered as studied in numerous other papers.>/i>
Except that there is no evidence [claims, speculation, and circular reasoning notwithstanding] for any different pattern, such as an increasing ‘background’.

Nicola Scafetta says:
January 13, 2014 at 8:10 pmSo, what is wrong in the paper? Very likely what is wrong is their claim that solar activity is represented only by the sunspot number record (their figure 2), which more or less represents Leif’s flat solar model. Solar forcings with different patterns than the sunspot number record alone must be considered as studied in numerous other papers.
Except that there is no evidence [claims, speculation, and circular reasoning notwithstanding] for any different pattern, such as an increasing ‘background’.

Don Newkirk says:
January 13, 2014 at 5:58 pm
Of course, Ninjo and Ninja are transliterations of the Spanish words as they would be spelt in any if a number of northern or eastern scripts of the Latin alphabet. Google accepts these spellings implicitly. (Try it!) That I am a theoretical linguist might bias my eye, but this is not only no serious error, it is no error at all. Back to the contents….

=========================================================================
I can see that. To a Spanish speaker seeing La Nina or El Nino without the tilde over the second N probably looks odd. I don’t know if either without the tilde means something in Spanish. But it’s still humorous.
(So, who do you think would win, La Ninja or El Zorro? 😎

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 13, 2014 at 7:24 pm
..The ‘other’ mechanisms are just straws to grasp at IMHO, but proponents will of course reach for any straw, no matter how weak..
————————
Well you have tried hard to convince us all that its not TSI. Then left us with only straws to play with.
So .. Galactic Cosmic Rays GCR, Protons and Electrons get trapped and accumulate within the Radiation Belts during low solar activity. . They are easily freed by slower stream solar wind events, causing flux dropouts into the earth atmosphere? During high solar activity with higher speed wind stream they are just blown to oblivion? Just playing with the straws..
Working on blc bounce loss cone.

Don Newkirk says:
January 13, 2014 at 5:58 pm
Of course, Ninjo and Ninja are transliterations of the Spanish words as they would be spelt in any if a number of northern or eastern scripts of the Latin alphabet. Google accepts these spellings implicitly. (Try it!) That I am a theoretical linguist might bias my eye, but this is not only no serious error, it is no error at all. Back to the contents….
—-
Yes, but the paper is written in English, which would mean the transliteration would be Nin-Yo not Nin-Jo. Likewise, the River Tems or would never be an acceptable spelling.

Carla says:
January 13, 2014 at 8:39 pmWell you have tried hard to convince us all that its not TSI. Then left us with only straws to play with.
If you must find a straw because your agenda demands so, you probably can find one that you like.

Dear Carla,
Hi! Re: “left us with only straws” — Well….. there are the oceans, and…. and volcanoes and…. clouds. Pretty big straws!
Hope you are enjoying your life out in the country (you mentioned your happy new move last spring).
Take care,
Janice

El Ninjo/La Ninja is just an English spelling for El Niño/La Niña. Sort of like, for a German word, writing Tuebingen for Tübingen. It’s not a typo
Perhaps El Ninjo/La Ninja are the phonetic spelling for El Niño/La Niña…….. in Castillian spanish?
If it were English, would it not be written NinYO and NinYA? Would not the Spanish pronunciation be NinHO and NinHA?
First post on this site, probably my last, as much of the theoretical physics are well beyond my abilities to offer a cogent opinion. Nevertheless a great site for continued education (the humor ain’t bad neither).

Hey, An-th-ony, I’m so sorry. I thought everyone would get the joke. If I may, I’d just like to say here that it was a video of The Andrews Sisters singing “Drinkin’ Rum and Coca Cola.” I’m really embarrassed about being SNIPPED and I hope this comment is allowed just so people know my post wasn’t lewd or some other awful thing people might imagine about it. I made a pun using the “K-o-ch” bros. as being part of a “Now, a word from our sponsors…”. Please forgive me An-tho-ny. I didn’t realize how offensive my attempt at humor would be to you.

Thanks for the hint, Dr. Svalgaard. I guess I’ve just been mistaken (for over 9 months!) about the acceptability of my interjections of humor and fun stuff. I thought (mistakenly) they provided the occasional “comedy relief.” I was wrong. I’ll try to not do that anymore.
I apologize to all you scientists. I’ll try not to do anymore “just for fun” posts on a science thread. Thank you for so kindly, silently, enduring them all these past months.

James the Elder says:
January 13, 2014 at 8:52 pmWould not the Spanish pronunciation be NinHO and NinHA?
That may explain things. A woman once told people she was in San Jose, and pronounced the J as in Jack. However she was told that in these parts, the js are pronounced like hs. She immediately said she was there in hune and huly.

Sunspots are magnetic storms on the sun. There are 7 recognized types of sunspots and the magnetic strength of each sub-type varies from spot to spot and not necessarily in sync with the size of the spot. Therefore counting sunspots (and groups) is a crude way of measuring the changes in magnetic strength of the sun.
I have used the Wilcox Observatory data (Stanford Uni) to compare the absolute magnetic strength of the sun with SIDC sunspot numbers. While there is broad comparison the peaks don’t necessarily coincide nor do the troughs. For example for all of the period from 2002 to about 2010 the absolute magnetic field strength was greater than the sunspot numbers would have suggested it should have been. From 2013 the opposite seems to be occurring although it is too early to tell if a new trend has commenced. Certainly the last few month’s high sunspot count haven’t been associated with high absolute average magnetic strength values. Geoff Sharp kindly posted this graph on his website http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/311#comment-1076

Sippen Kool-Ade says: El Ninjo/La Ninja is just an English spelling for El Niño/La Niña. Sort of like, for a German word, writing Tuebingen for Tübingen. It’s not a typo. Get with it!!”

Yes I am sorry Sippen, jorgekafkazar above is quite correct it’s not even close as just a translation and I am guessing lack of any other close translations is the only reason google picks it up. Google images search on La Ninja is funny you get one or two of images of climate change but the rest of them are very funny.
So Sippen do you have any actual evidence for us that anyone in climate science or really anywhere uses these spellings because it appears not to be as you claim?

Janice Moore says:
January 13, 2014 at 9:14 pmI apologize to all you scientists. I’ll try not to do anymore “just for fun” posts on a science thread. Thank you for so kindly, silently, enduring them all these past months.
Hey Sweet Pea!All have sinned and come short of the glory…. Don’t beat yourself up too much…. just about everyone commenting on WUWT strays out of bounds eventually. It’s just part of being human. And some of the stuffier contributors might well benefit from a greater sense of humor! Heck – If I couldn’t laugh and poke fun at some of this AGW fanaticism, I’d be cryin’ all the time for the immense damage being done to the country I love. Fortunately, A is fairly tolerant of our occasional ‘misfires’. };>)
Mac

That “El Ninjo/La Ninja” is going to come back to haunt him/them (author/reviewer/journal) big time. It shows the world just how “expert” they are. I mean, c’mon, shouldn’t they at least be familiar with the terminology?
Don’t these bods even bother with their homework anymore? Or do they just write drunk? I suppose they don’t care, they got their money. Sheesh. Does anybody take these fools seriously?
I hope somebody has saved this error because it’s going to disappear, you can be sure.

Oh, Mackie, did I need to hear that. Thank you, so much. Being sent out in the hall is just really painful for me even if I had it coming. I’m sure glad I came back here and got to see your kind words. A cup of cold water for a 10-year-old girl in a very good disguise.
Gratefully,
Janice

“…the climate appears to be out of control…”
This phrase actually appears in a peer reviewed scientific article? Seriously? That’s on a par with La Ninja.
I also like: “This development took away some of the incitement to cut down on human-induced growth in greenhouse gasses.”
Took away some of the INDUCEMENT to cut down on human PRODUCED growth…
And their climatological thinking is just as incompetent. If the pause is solar-induced it shows that solar is a stronger driver of climate than CO2, so WHY should we expect warming to come roaring back? Oh, because the authors expect the 20th century’s grand maximum levels of solar activity to come roaring back. Brilliant!
Wait a minute, it’s actually worse. On closer reading, they aren’t assuming that high levels of solar activity will return. They are assuming that continued low solar activity will not have a continued cooling effect. In other words, the concluding paragraph of this paper is actually another example of climate scientists thinking that it is the rate of change in a forcing that drives temperature change, not the level of the forcing. I have compiled 18 such statements and I guess I’m going to have to add this one to the list:

The solar activity is now at the lowest level seen in the past 100 years and could not go much lower. Thus, the observed global temperatures may soon resume the steady rise observed from around 1980 to 2001. If solar activity starts increasing then the global temperatures may rise even steeper than that seen over the past three decades.

“The purpose of the present communication is not to predict”
Because prediction is not needed in the ‘science’.
“The decaying solar activity makes the recently recorded global temperatures flatten out and thus disguises the real climate development”
What is real is not real. Or something like that. Are they for real?
“With a steady level of cycle-avera- ge solar activity the global temperatures would have shown a steady rise from 1980 to present (2013)”
We have access to alternative realities in the lab and we can check them…
Amazing.

It’s just the quality of all these (recent) papers that really gets me. There have been too much rubbish being published by people that ought to know better. I remember my research days. It took weeks to get a paper peer reviewed and that was walking round to every reviewer and then chasing them every week.
There were never any spelling mistakes (we didn’t have spell checkers). Ninja is just criminally stupid and shows a complete lack of review process.

Sun + CO2 doesn’t tell the whole story, don’t forget the moon and its strong influence through the north atlantic multidecadal tide variations that are measured with the AMO. The two together + the random nature of weather variations is probably more than enough to explain the tiny variations in temperature over the last couple of centuries – there’s not much in the data that excludes an extremely low (0.5 or lower) CO2 sensitivity.

Slowly climate scientists are being forced to confront a very inconvenient truth: that solar variability is a very powerful climate driver.
But their response is bizarre: they show that a fall in solar activity does cause cooling. But, according to them, a rise in solar activity will not have any corresponding warming effect. Bearing in mind that the sun was extremely active in the last century, the obvious conclusion would be that the sun caused most of the warming – and that therefore the effect of increased CO2 must have been small. That really woud be inconvenient.
If a fall in activity causes x amount of cooling, then an equal rise in activity must cause x amount of warming. Otherwise, after millions of years the earth would end up boiling hot or freezing cold.
Chris

So the Japanese are now responsible for the warming and cooling? 😉
ON a serious note, if indeed the sun’s low activities are influencing the temperature, then why do none of the models reflect that apparently big factor?

Have to love the Anthropogenic zealots.
They hold to the that man’s influences are superior to nature, admit that nature is superior to man, then ignore what they just admitted.
It is amazing these guys can tie their own shoes.

@ Newkirk writes;
“Of course, Ninjo and Ninja are transliterations of the Spanish words as they would be spelt in any if a number of northern or eastern scripts of the Latin alphabet. Google accepts these spellings implicitly. ”
Perfectly right. I don’t see any references to Asian martial arts in the abstract, so let us cut out this childish nonsense about ninja turtles. There are much more important problems in the paper to discuss.

Alec Rawls (January 14, 2014 at 12:56 am) “In other words, the concluding paragraph of this paper is actually another example of climate scientists thinking that it is the rate of change in a forcing that drives temperature change, not the level of the forcing. I have compiled 18 such statements and I guess I’m going to have to add this one to the list…”
Nice resource.

lsvalgaard says:
January 13, 2014 at 8:24 pm
Except that there is no evidence [claims, speculation, and circular reasoning notwithstanding] for any different pattern, such as an increasing ‘background’.
**********
Well not, Leif. Everybody is talking about a change in the “background” radiation and other things that make solar activity patterns “differ” from the sunspot number record alone which coincides with you flat solar model. For example, Hoyt, Lean, Frohlich, Shapiro, Willson, many others and, of course, me. It is only you who denies it.
The paper by Stauning has demonstrated, once properly interpreted, that your flat solar model does not work as a proper solar/astronomical model for interpreting the climate patterns because when adopted some temperature patterns cannot be properly interpreted any more, as I explained above.
A proper solar model must look as my model with peaks around 1940s and 2000s, minima in 1910s and 1970s and an approaching minimum in 2030s (the ~60 year Jupiter-Saturn oscillation) to properly interpret climate changes with their 60-year oscillation.
Read well my papers, Leif.
For example see here:
Scafetta, N. 2013. Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles. Earth-Science Reviews 126, 321-357.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825213001402
and see well the performance of my model herehttp://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model_1

Same issue with the deep oceans as per Dana Nuttercelli. He says the missing heat went deep and is responsible for the surface temperature standstill. What about the other way round too? I want to have my cake and eat it. So there.

Nicola Scafetta says:
January 14, 2014 at 6:46 amWell not, Leif. Everybody is talking about a change in the “background” radiation and other things that make solar activity patterns “differ” from the sunspot number record alone which coincides with you flat solar model. For example, Hoyt, Lean, Frohlich, Shapiro, Willson, many others and, of course, me. It is only you who denies it.
You are a bit economical with the facts here. E.g. Lean says that such a background has ‘not been observed’, Froehlich says that there has been no background change since ~1900, Schrijver that solar radiation at the 2008 minimum was the same as that during the Maunder Minimum, Schatten acknowledges that their reconstruction was wrong, etc, etc. My own work shows that there has been no long-term trend in solar magnetism since the 1830s.

“…solar activity is now at the lowest level seen in the past 100 years and could not go much lower.”
Yes, it could go lower. Another Maunder minimum with no sunspots at all for extended periods of time is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Implication: the change in solar forcing as a consequence of the decline in sunspot activity is equal to the radiative forcing due to CO2.
Don’t know why they didn’t do the calculation ….or even just cross-plot the delta change and the solar activity numbers, then deconvolve (?) the resultant curve.

Any attempt to explain the recent pause in the rise of global temperature anomalies , that does not consider the impact of changes in ocean SST cycles and deep ocean currents , will prove to be questionable .
Northern Hemisphere SST show a decline since 2004 during every season of the year and annually as well.
.
The North Atlantic Ocean SST and AMO are declining slowly, the Pacific Ocean SST is flat and the North Pacific Ocean SST is flat but declining since 2005. The PDO index is also declining but PDO is a pattern change indicator and this tells us that there is now more colder water at the eastern side of the Pacific than in the western or central part of the Pacific than we had 10 years ago. There are also fewer strong El Ninos. These factors can all combine to keep the global temperatures flat and now slightly declining as they did 1880 to 1910 and again 1945-1975. The slow decline in global temperatures is likely to continue as ocean cycles pole to pole tend to be long [65-70 years]

Slow down in solar activity take some years to ‘percolate’ from the interior to visible and counted sunspots or other measured metrics. Slow down in geological activity across the globe started long before observed slow down in the observed solar activity:http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/APS.htm
precursor, cause, consequence, coincidence ???

For anyone interested, the Japanese ideogram (kanji) for Ninja is “忍者”.
The character on the left “忍” means stealth/perseverance and is comprised of two radicals, the top one “刀” is for sword (an image of the tip of a sword with a drop of blood on it) and the bottom radical “心” means heart or spirit (the image of two ventricles/atriums).
The combined image created is that of the heart and spirit of an assassin must exhibit stealth and perseverance in order to kill his target.
The right kanji ” 者” means person and is the image of a person “土” in a field holding a scythe “ノ” working hard under the sun “日”.
The ninja were very highly trained and skilled assassins in the 15th~17th centuries hired by samurai to spy on or assinate their enemies. Under the very strict code of honor (bushido) of the samurai class, it wasn’t proper for a samurai to personally assassinate an enemy, but it was perfectly acceptable for him to hire ninja to do their dirty work.
The ninja also lived under a very strict code of honor and we’re oblige to commit suicide rather than risk capture/torture and disclose the name of the samurai that hired him.
Anyway, it seems very disingenuous for CAGW advocates to blame the 17 years of no warming trend on decreased sunspot activity and then conveniently ignore the fact that sunspot activity from 1933 to 1996 were the strongest 63-year string of sunspots in 11,400 years…
They can’t have their cake, without heating it, too….

This is very amusing. The last 70 years or so are what’s called the Modern Maximum, the highest level of solar activity in 1000 + years. This extraordinary activity has nothing to do with recent warming, but yet the current solar cycle, which is low like those before the Modern Maximum, explains the pause? HA!
Of course, who knows what the “recent warming” is, either. The data has been tortured into a meaningless heap by all the adjustments and homogenizations, etc.

It looks like you can already see the strategy for obfuscation in the face of IPCC admission of no further warming and the next phase of outright cooling. That strategy is “all the above” factors including the sun to employ as needed, along with blocking patterns, volcanoes, El Ninos, and the blue plate special of the day if need be. This is the strategy that comes with the move away from fixed position exposure of models and forecasts. Call it the Tactical Mobility Strategy. It’s still an extension of bunker mentality though.

We can make excuses for an author all day long: the editor mailed it in; the author made a few typos but is generally a ‘good scientist; etc.
Anyone who writes this poorly, even when relying on an absent editor, is a weetard.

The paleoclimate data shows the Earth has been generally thawing since the last major ice advance with minor glaciation coinciding with low sunspot activity. Thawing means temperatures rise, but not because of heat input. Like a thawing glass of ice water, the ice will be less effective at maintaining a lower temperature than its environment as it melts. The Earth will continue to “warm” as long as there is ice to melt. The warmth of the Earth will always have an upper limit due to hurricanes and typhoons, which pump infrared heat off the planet. These storms are nature’s air conditioners. So nobody should be too worried about global thawing and it should be allowed to run its natural course (as though we have anything to say about it).
I disagree with the author who said it is unlikely solar activity will be lower during the next cycle. I suspect we will see cycle 25 with near zero sunspot activity and cycle 26 will still be lower than cycle 24. We may not see 1990 levels of sunspot activity until around 2150.
In the meantime, the ice is certain to advance during the next 30 to 40 years. Generations 140 or so years from now can worry about the thawing when it returns.

Nicola Scafetta says:
January 14, 2014 at 6:46 am
lsvalgaard says:
January 13, 2014 at 8:24 pm
Except that there is no evidence [claims, speculation, and circular reasoning notwithstanding] for any different pattern, such as an increasing ‘background’.
**********
Well not, Leif. Everybody is talking about a change in the “background” radiation and other things that make solar activity patterns “differ” from the sunspot number record alone which coincides with you flat solar model. For example, Hoyt, Lean, Frohlich, Shapiro, Willson, many others and, of course, me. It is only you who denies it.
———————
Nooooooo really? The stamp collector thinks some changes in interstellar reconnection at the heliosphere interface has shape shifted… again..
Good night

@ Davis Thomson, your statement about an upper limit due to storms is exactly where the IPCC and I digress. CO2 according to the IPCC retains the latent heat that is released from storms, therefore leading to a “tipping point” beyond which it continues to get hotter and hotter. Since we have by all measures dumped tremendous amounts of CO2 just in the last 10 years, the recent trend in temperatures has to be most troubling for them. I certainly agree with you that the heat is released. The IPCC has provided no scientific data that proves that the IR is retained. CO2 absorbs only 3 wavelengths in the nanometer band. ( Just as a comparison, the human eye can discern 2 million shades of red) Next for the light to be returned as heat the refractive index of the upper atmosphere would have to be like the cladding of fiber optic cable. As far I know CO2 is not a doping agent that would cause IR to be reflected back . As a sudden thought as of today a doping agent could be released by meteorites, or volcanoes. These are just some random thoughts. That would be a counter point to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. The IR being reflected back would be too little with the amount of CO2 currently available wouldn’t be able to produce the effect without a cladding effect. There is more space between the molecules, in other words the heat just keeps on going. I can quite easily write a huge book on what’s wrong with AGW Theory and a very short one with what s right.

There is logical science in using the term La Ninja in this study. Ninjas were well known for their assassination skills – is the publication of this study not an assassination of science and peer review?

If something on its own is enough to stop the warming then it is at least equal to it. If the cooling is equal to the warming, then the warming can easily be caused by the same thing that caused the cooling. Cherry picking what they like with half mechanisms is not proper science, just shows their agenda here in the first place and continues how bad climate science has become. Assumptions and no evidence to support different behavior in their cherries.
Scientific evidence supports the reason why the sun especially caused warming during this period and can be explained unlike what this article assumes.The mutant El Ninja turtles contributed to warming for the period as an indicator of the suns energy warming the tropical oceans previously. Reduced global cloud levels enabled this extra energy to penetrate the oceans and warm global temperatures. There might have only been a little increase in solar activity over this period, but was enough to generate lot more energy in the tropical oceans than before, especially due to lowering global cloud levels. This is the mechanism that magnifies small changes by the sun to explain larger ocean energy changes on global temperatures.
Hence, no to the article, the sun does explain both warming and stabilizing of global temperatures.

derfel cadarn says:
January 15, 2014 at 3:07 am
If its absence “caused the pause” what makes them believe that normal or elevated solar activity was not the cause of the supposed warming initially.
++++++++++++
This is a very astute question sir. Well asked! I’d say it invokes the “Heads I win, Tails you lose” game.

Leif says:
The ‘other’ mechanisms are just straws to grasp at IMHO, but proponents will of course reach for any straw, no matter how weak.
++++++++++++
Grasping at straws, perhaps.
I choose to bring up some things that has been bothering me, because I cannot be convinced. Sure – I know this is my problem.
I have a hard time swallowing the claim that TSI is all that matters. It’s said that the sensors collect energy at full spectrum, and that this shows that the range of total energy from the sun is within very small and cannot account for the temperature variations we see on the earth.
I say, the sensors are not the earth! Thyat statement is correct. But whether it’s meaningful to this discussion, needs to be explored further by men.
This is not a subtle statement. The sensors are perfectly stable with respect to changes in TSI. The sensors have been tuned to collect all of the heat energy from the full spectrum of the solar output. The earth, however has not been tuned by a laboratory to perfectly collect all of the full spectrum of the solar output. The process of heating the sensors and heating the planet earth are not similar, I posit.
I think it’s valid to say that the earth (unlike the sensors) absolutely changes in response to the changes of the frequency output of the sun. There are all sorts of mechanisms by which different wavelengths cause physical changes on planet earth, which in turn affects how the earth receives or rejects energy from the sun. I say receive and reject to include all of the energy from all means whether convective, radiated, conducted absorbed, stored released etc.
The energy comes from the sun (I exclude magma, and radiation for this post). Bob Tisdale has tracked where the heat came from and where it went –and I do not pretend to explain his point of view correctly. However, it is reasonable to accept that the oceans can store and release heat, such that there has been a net gain (over a 25 or so year period) of temperature that can be tracked to the oceans, over various decadal time periods. Why that is? Is it just random? Maybe. When the sun goes into a bit of a slump (like cycle 24), we might expect ENSO to tend towards weaker La Nina recharging, and less powerful EL Ninos if we integrate cumulative heat uptake. We’ve been seeing this, I think.
If there is a significant change in spectral frequencies that are on order of factors of 10 (ten) or more than the TSI, then it makes sense that the earth will respond differently than the tuned sensors that measure TSI. I would expect energy uptake to the earth to change in response to this shift. Does UV have an effect on ozone? If yes, how does this effect heat balance?
We also know that the magnetosphere changes in response to solar output, and there are some studies – maybe they are bunk – that show creation of more ionized particles seeding water vapor into cloud droplets.
To me, there are so many straws, that I feel the need to take a drink… yes I know, Leif you might call the drink Kool-Aide.
But to conclude, TSI measurements from tuned sensors in space do not experience the same energy that the earth experiences since it changes in response to the sun’s changes.

Mario Lento says:
January 15, 2014 at 9:01 pmIf there is a significant change in spectral frequencies that are on order of factors of 10 (ten) or more than the TSI, then it makes sense that the earth will respond differently than the tuned sensors that measure TSI.
This is a classic straw. Those frequencies are also a [very small] part of TSI. The amount of loose change in the pocket of Bill Gates may change by a factor of 10 or more from day to day, but that hardly makes a dent in his total wealth. Same thing with the solar wind, magnetosphere, etc, TSI is where the energy is. The very small variations of the higher energy photons and particles can [and do] make large changes in the tenuous upper atmosphere because the air density up there is less than a millionth of the lower atmosphere where we [and climate] live.But to conclude, TSI measurements from tuned sensors in space do not experience the same energy that the earth experiences since it changes in response to the sun’s changes.
“tuned” is the wrong word here. The sensor is not ‘tuned’ at all. It directly measures the actual, real amount of energy that fall into it. That same energy falls upon the Earth as well.

Leif says:
“tuned” is the wrong word here. The sensor is not ‘tuned’ at all. It directly measures the actual, real amount of energy that fall into it. That same energy falls upon the Earth as well.
+++++++++
Thank you Leif:
I read the link to NASA’s pages a while back – but don’t remember where it is. I believe I recall that there are a number of different components that are specifically sensitive to a variety of frequencies. If that’s so, the system is designed to pick up precise heat measurements at various frequencies. Perhaps I am conflating two different things – the TSI might be a single sensor that reads all the energy, while the tuned sensors are sensitive to different frequencies. Perhaps I need to spend time and find that link and read it closely.
Leif says:
“Those frequencies are also a [very small] part of TSI. The amount of loose change in the pocket of Bill Gates may change by a factor of 10 or more from day to day, but that hardly makes a dent in his total wealth”
+++++++++++
“My problem comes with descriptions like:
“frequencies are also a [very small] part of TSI”
I am not convinced that the minor changes don’t affect elements and compounds in our atmosphere and oceans which then affect how energy is collected and dispersed throughout the chaotic atmosphere and oceans. After all, we are talking about very small changes in temperature over decades.
0.7K over 30 years is a 0.2% change in temperature. I cannot believe that this trivial temperature change (0.2%) is in no way related to the sun, which changes by half that amount in TSI, sometimes for decades at a time and with different frequencies profiles that have unknown affect on the way our atmosphere and oceans uptake energy.
My bearded dragon eats more and gets more active when he gets a fresh UV lamp. As a matter of fact, he changes color in response to a lamp when it no longer puts out enough UV for him. He loses appetite with an old lamp. The temperature, stays relatively constant. And I measured the current – the lamp draws the same current. [I have run experiments which warmer lights, with no UV, and even with warmer temperatures, the animal will not eat without enough UV.] So, the tiny, “pocket change” difference in UV makes HUGE changes to the life, behavior and color of this meager animal. But, I can’t prove the light source has ANYTHING to do with it because, well, the total energy from it changed only 0.001%. Let’s call it a straw man experiment, because I know it’s apples and oranges.

Dr. Svalgaard,
1) re: potential effect of UV on global climate (at the surface):
Q 1 – Would the following comment by you (and the linked .pdf) about 3 years ago be a potential help to Mr. Lento in getting the answers he is seeking re: UV?
Q 2- Has anything new along these lines been observed or is the state of knowledge on this essentially what it was at the end of 2010?
“Leif Svalgaard says: December 22, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Re: Stephen Wilde says: December 22, 2010 at 11:16 amWhat is not in the models is any accurate representation of changes in the composition of photons, wavelengths and particles coming from the sun.
These things are [and can be] considered, e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2010ScienceMeeting/doc/Session4/4.04_Cahalan_atmos_model.pdfThe result is invariably that the influence is tiny.”
{emphasis mine}
{See slides ## 8-13 from above-linked .pdf:
Experiment 1: as in Lean (2000)
»UV, VIS and NIRvary in phase with TSI
»UV, VIS, NIR amplitudes proportional to band energies
–Amp (UV, VIS, NIR) = 0.28, 0.47, 0.25 X Amp (TSI)

Experiment 2: as in Harder et al. (2009)
»VIS varies out-of-phase with TSI
»UV amplitude much larger, compensated by out-of-phase VIS
–Amp (UV, VIS, NIR) = 1.67, –0.80, 0.13 X Amp (TSI)

Both Experiments: °
»TSI variations (peak to peak) ≈0.09% X TSI ≈ 1.2 W/m2
»TSI top-of-atmosphere (TOA) forcing: [cos (55°) / 2] X TSI ≈ 0.34 W/m2}
*****************************************************************************
2) re: “Some climatologists, including Judith Lean of the United States Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, remain skeptical of the SORCE SIM measurements. “I strongly suspect the SIM trends are instrumental, not solar,” said Lean, noting that instrumental drift has been present in every instrument that has tracked ultraviolet wavelengths to date.” {quoted in the same thread in which your above-quoted comment appears: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/22/sorces-solar-spectral-surprise-uv-declined-tsi-constant/}
Q. In the 3 years or so since Ms. Lean said that, what has been observed, if anything, about whether or not the SIM trends are merely “instrumental?”
Trying to stick to the science,
Janice
P.S. Nice analogy using Bill Gates’ loose change. Now, THAT is a tiny %, indeed.

Oh, Mario, I’m sorry to have jumped in here — I thought you had likely hit the sack for the evening and was only hoping to elicit helpful information. Please disregard my post if it is not helpful, both you and Dr. Svalgaard.
btw: what is “bearded dragon?” It sounds like a horrid pet. GET A DOG!
#(:))

Mario Lento says:
January 15, 2014 at 10:13 pmIf that’s so, the system is designed to pick up precise heat measurements at various frequencies. Perhaps I am conflating two different things – the TSI might be a single sensor that reads all the energy, while the tuned sensors are sensitive to different frequencies. Perhaps I need to spend time and find that link and read it closely.
There is a set of sensors measuring the energy in several wavelength bands. They measure the Solar Spectral Irradiance [called SSI]. And they are not ‘tuned’; they simply pick up all the energy in their band [e.g. using a filter]. The reason I don’t like ‘tuned’ is that that word usually denote some manipulation or setup such that the instrument [or a model] has a ‘desired’ response: you tune until the response matches a set goal. This is not what instruments that measure SSI or TSI do.I am not convinced that the minor changes don’t affect elements and compounds in our atmosphere and oceans which then affect how energy is collected and dispersed throughout the chaotic atmosphere and oceans. After all, we are talking about very small changes in temperature over decades.
The energy content of the oceans and atmosphere is enormous compared to the variations of the incoming energy.0.7K over 30 years is a 0.2% change in temperature.
The percentage change in energy is 4 times the percentage change of temperature, so deltaT = 0.2% corresponds to 0.8% in energy, or 11 W/m2 of TSI. This is about 10 times as much as TSI is observed to vary over a solar cycle. No matter what processes you invoke the energy budget must balance. Mother Nature is very strict on this. The way some people get around this problem is to postulate that the solar cycle rides on top of a large long-term ‘background’ [e.g. that has changed by 11 W/m2]. I personally don’t think the data supports this view, but some people simply posit that there is such a change and voila you can match the observed climate changes. I take a dim view of such circular logic, but it may be to your liking as it solves all problems and does away with all uncertainty.because I know it’s apples and oranges.
Such comparisons are the straws being grasped at. Here is another: by pressing a button I can explade a 100 Megaton nuclear device.

Janice Moore says:
January 15, 2014 at 10:21 pmQ. In the 3 years or so since Ms. Lean said that, what has been observed, if anything, about whether or not the SIM trends are merely “instrumental?”
The jury is still out, but I would tend to agree with Lean. In any event, even if the changes were real their impact on climate would be minimal [as per Calahan], of the order of 0.05 degree over a cycle.

Janice Moore says:
January 15, 2014 at 10:25 pm
Oh, Mario, I’m sorry to have jumped in here — I thought you had likely hit the sack for the evening and was only hoping to elicit helpful information. Please disregard my post if it is not helpful, both you and Dr. Svalgaard.
btw: what is “bearded dragon?” It sounds like a horrid pet. GET A DOG!
#(:))
+++++++++++++
No problem Janice. Wife is allergic, and we don’t have the room that a dog deserves.
Dragon is scary looking, but nice temperament.
The point that I make is, saying something is small –is only small in terms of how it heats a sensor. Small changes can be significant, and to dismiss that, without considering what the small changes affect (verb) leaves me wondering about those feedbacks.
UV has a very significant affect on ozone, for instance, that will directly affect how the TSI affects the energy that interacts with our climate. Ozone has a significant effect wrt temperature leaving the earth system. This is just a single example of what I mean. These effects are absent (not considered) with the said RTD temperature sensors and their devices. UV changes are an order of magnitude greater than delta TSI. So, I do not consider it dismissed as part of the cause. There are many other factors, this is just one example.
The burden of proof is with me, not Leif, and I have no direct experience in this field. I pale in contrast to what Leif knows, still I remain skeptical.

Mario Lento says:
January 15, 2014 at 10:49 pmstill I remain skeptical
One can only be skeptical if one knows enough about the subject. As Al Gore puts it: “if you don’t know anything, everything is possible”.

Mario===>[Mario’s new comments in brackets]
lsvalgaard says:
January 15, 2014 at 10:41 pm
Mario Lento says:
January 15, 2014 at 10:13 pm
If that’s so, the system is designed to pick up precise heat measurements at various frequencies. Perhaps I am conflating two different things – the TSI might be a single sensor that reads all the energy, while the tuned sensors are sensitive to different frequencies. Perhaps I need to spend time and find that link and read it closely.
There is a set of sensors measuring the energy in several wavelength bands. They measure the Solar Spectral Irradiance [called SSI]. And they are not ‘tuned’; they simply pick up all the energy in their band [e.g. using a filter]. The reason I don’t like ‘tuned’ is that that word usually denote some manipulation or setup such that the instrument [or a model] has a ‘desired’ response: you tune until the response matches a set goal. This is not what instruments that measure SSI or TSI do.
Mario===>[the terms bandwidth and filter denote tuning. I understand what you mean, but what I am saying is that they are in fact tuned to be receptive to those frequencies as you describe –I get that they are not looking for a particular result]
I am not convinced that the minor changes don’t affect elements and compounds in our atmosphere and oceans which then affect how energy is collected and dispersed throughout the chaotic atmosphere and oceans. After all, we are talking about very small changes in temperature over decades.
Leif===>The energy content of the oceans and atmosphere is enormous compared to the variations of the incoming energy.
Leif===>0.7K over 30 years is a 0.2% change in temperature.
The percentage change in energy is 4 times the percentage change of temperature, so deltaT = 0.2% corresponds to 0.8% in energy, or 11 W/m2 of TSI. This is about 10 times as much as TSI is observed to vary over a solar cycle. No matter what processes you invoke the energy budget must balance. Mother Nature is very strict on this. The way some people get around this problem is to postulate that the solar cycle rides on top of a large long-term ‘background’ [e.g. that has changed by 11 W/m2]. I personally don’t think the data supports this view, but some people simply posit that there is such a change and voila you can match the observed climate changes. I take a dim view of such circular logic, but it may be to your liking as it solves all problems and does away with all uncertainty.
Mario===>[I defer to you here Leif]
Leif===>because I know it’s apples and oranges.
Such comparisons are the straws being grasped at. Here is another: by pressing a button I can explade a 100 Megaton nuclear device.
Mario===>[That’s why I said apples and oranges, perhaps I should have said apples and staplers. Still, the effects on other things (not unlike how UV dramatically changes activity in a lizard) is not considered in just looking at sensor data vs earth which is a living breathing complex system. This system is effected by changes in UV more so than the TSI]
Mario===>[Remaining skeptical I do not say you’re wrong – I say I am unconvinced that these effects are zero or close to zero. I believe you have not considered them (perhaps no one has provided you with information that is accountable). I say they are more significant than they are being considered by looking only at sensors in space] I wish I were writing a thesis, and could devote my time to studying such things –so for now, I appreciate your expertise, and willingness to entertain me.]

lsvalgaard says:
January 15, 2014 at 10:53 pm
Mario Lento says:
January 15, 2014 at 10:49 pm
still I remain skeptical
One can only be skeptical if one knows enough about the subject. As Al Gore puts it: “if you don’t know anything, everything is possible”.
++++++++
I’ll take that as a plus… so I get a C+ instead of a C for effort.

Mario Lento says:
January 15, 2014 at 11:06 pmbut what I am saying is that they are in fact tuned to be receptive to those frequencies as you describe –I get that they are not looking for a particular result]
Regardless, ‘tuned’ is the wrong word. A radio receiver can be tuned to a specific frequency, but we would not say that the receiver is tuned to FM band 2, but rather to a much narrower part of the band. The correct terminology is important. The engineering community that builds SSIs does not use the word ‘tuning’ so we should not either. The ‘filtering’ in SSI-instrument is done by spreading the light out into a spectrum and then let pieces of that spectrum fall on appropriate sensors [which themselves are not ‘tuned’ in any way]This system is effected by changes in UV more so than the TSI
Since UV also changes over the solar cycle, any effects UV has will also change over the cycle. We do not see a solar cycle change exceeding 0.1 degrees, so the UV effects must be very small as TSI already accounts for 0.07 degrees.I believe you have not considered them (perhaps no one has provided you with information that is accountable).
Since UV also changes over the solar cycle, any effects UV has will also change over the cycle. We do not see a solar cycle change exceeding 0.1 degrees, so the UV effects must be very small as TSI already accounts for 0.07 degrees.
When you say that I have not considered them, in what sense have you considered them and quantified your considerations? People who consider these things [by modeling them] find very small effects at the surface, as Janice points out.

lsvalgaard says:
January 15, 2014 at 11:26 pm
Mario Lento says:
January 15, 2014 at 11:06 pm
but what I am saying is that they are in fact tuned to be receptive to those frequencies as you describe –I get that they are not looking for a particular result]
Leif===> Regardless, ‘tuned’ is the wrong word. A radio receiver can be tuned to a specific frequency, but we would not say that the receiver is tuned to FM band 2, but rather to a much narrower part of the band. The correct terminology is important. The engineering community that builds SSIs does not use the word ‘tuning’ so we should not either. The ‘filtering’ in SSI-instrument is done by spreading the light out into a spectrum and then let pieces of that spectrum fall on appropriate sensors [which themselves are not ‘tuned’ in any way]
Mario===>The appropriate sensors are sensitive to particular frequencies. If the sensors were not let’s say “created to be sensitive to those frequencies”, they would not realize the magnitude of the measurement, being that they are not in tune, and there is no resonance. So I use the word tune, since that is what a tuned sensor is. It does not change your correct argument, and I do not believe there is any hocus pocus, nor do I believe a result is being sought.
This system is effected by changes in UV more so than the TSI
Leif===>Since UV also changes over the solar cycle, any effects UV has will also change over the cycle. We do not see a solar cycle change exceeding 0.1 degrees, so the UV effects must be very small as TSI already accounts for 0.07 degrees.
BONUS ROUND – smoking gun
Mario===> I believe you’ve helped me understand why I feel the sun is more of a driver than you believe. Leif, above, you’re talking about the magnitude of over a 1/2 of a single solar cycle –agreed? That is, you say there is a 0.1K delta throughout 1/2 a single solar cycle. I infer from this that the delta is realized between the min and max. In my explanation, I suggest that we must integrate the rate of solar output over “several relatively inactive solar cycles.” This is not a trivial statement. Doing so, must/should show an accumulation in that rate over strong cycles vs a reduction over weak cycles. I discuss a waning level of activity over several cycles. Calculus tells us that we can integrate the rate to find the energy that accumulates.
(For those of us unfamiliar with Calculus, if we integrate acceleration, we get velocity. Integrating velocity, gets distance. Likewise, if we differentiate distance, we get rate, and the differential to rate is acceleration. If we differentiate acceleration, we get what we call jerk (in motion control).
I conclude that if we have several relatively inactive solar cycles, those changes on order of magnitude of 0.1K deltas should add up. And this does not include the argument of feedbacks based on ozone production.
Older post===Mario says -I believe you have not considered them (perhaps no one has provided you with information that is accountable).
Leif===.Since UV also changes over the solar cycle, any effects UV has will also change over the cycle. We do not see a solar cycle change exceeding 0.1 degrees, so the UV effects must be very small as TSI already accounts for 0.07 degrees.
Leif===> When you say that I have not considered them, in what sense have you considered them and quantified your considerations? People who consider these things [by modeling them] find very small effects at the surface, as Janice points out.
Mario===> It was late last night, and I should be careful of saying what you consider or not. No disrespect meant –sorry!

Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:53 amMario===>The appropriate sensors are sensitive to particular frequencies. If the sensors were not let’s say “created to be sensitive to those frequencies”, they would not realize the magnitude of the measurement, being that they are not in tune, and there is no resonance. So I use the word tune, since that is what a tuned sensor is. It does not change your correct argument, and I do not believe there is any hocus pocus, nor do I believe a result is being sought.
The sensors are NOT sensitive to particular frequencies. They are equally sensitive at all frequencies. To measure how much energy we get from wavelength W1 to wavelength W2 we make a spectrum and pass light from W1 to W2 to a sensor. There is no resonance. See, thinking in terms of ‘tuning’ you are led to the erroneous notion of ‘resonance’ [which would be how a radio receiver tuned to a station would operate: http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/tis/info/pdf/8504028.pdf ]. It is important to use established terminology.In my explanation, I suggest that we must integrate the rate of solar output over “several relatively inactive solar cycles.” This is not a trivial statement. Doing so, must/should show an accumulation in that rate over strong cycles vs a reduction over weak cycles. I discuss a waning level of activity over several cycles. Calculus tells us that we can integrate the rate to find the energy that accumulates.
This is another one of the classical straws. From 1834 to 1901 solar activity was much like from 1954 to 2014: progressing from high cycles steadily down to a very weak cycle, so the ‘integrals’ would be similar, yet the climate didn’t behave like this. Here is a comparison between those two periods http://www.leif.org/research/Rz-Comparisons.png
You see: the ‘straws’ have a strong hold on you even if you are only grasping for them..

Leif===>The sensors are NOT sensitive to particular frequencies. They are equally sensitive at all frequencies. To measure how much energy we get from wavelength W1 to wavelength W2 we make a spectrum and pass light from W1 to W2 to a sensor. There is no resonance. See, thinking in terms of ‘tuning’ you are led to the erroneous notion of ‘resonance’ [which would be how a radio receiver tuned to a station would operate: ]
++++++
Mario==>To tune or not to tune, that is the question! I did not understand how the sensors were designed, you’ve explained it to my satisfaction. I learned something –thank you. The sensors are not tuned, rather they are exposed to selective frequencies of radiation. Those selected frequencie affect the sensor, and the temperature is measured. (I understand the mechanism is proportional to how much voltage is needed at constant current to maintain a constant temperature –but I digress) The resulting temperature is an attribute of the frequencies being measured. Got it.
Mario=====>>This tune/not tune issue does not address the following. A sensor that measures radiated energy needs to be able to absorb all of that energy, and reflect none of it. It needs to capture all of the energy. It needs to be perfectly all-inclusive. The Earth does not capture all of the energy, of course. The energy captured by the earth changes all the time, of course. Some of the changes in the earth’s reflectivity change in response to varying wavelengths shining on it.
There are feedbacks, and I claim that there are not equal to zero. For your argument to be true, the feedbacks must be close to zero. There is where my skepticism exists. The creation of different amounts of ozone, and other factors related to the changes of the sun, which are not trivial, lead to changes which have leads and lags in them. Integrating those over time has effect, I think.

lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:50 am
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:41 amhttp://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:30/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/offset:-51/integral/normalise
It all depends on the cherry picked -40. Try -60 [I used my corrected version of Rz].
Using the ‘official’ series the mean is 51. Try -51.
_________
Come on now, we are talking about leads and lags. Your tuning (just kidding) offset still shows a relation that is a signature. I did not leave that out as a caveat that there are leads and lags. One can not simply dismiss that the integral of the changes in energy of the sun is the argument, as you can see it is quite a strong indication.
Don’t you think exploration in this area would be important for advancing our understanding of climate?

Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:54 am
A sensor that measures radiated energy needs to be able to absorb all of that energy, and reflect none of it. It needs to capture all of the energy. It needs to be perfectly all-inclusive. The Earth does not capture all of the energy, of course. The energy captured by the earth changes all the time, of course. Some of the changes in the earth’s reflectivity change in response to varying wavelengths shining on it.
The albedo of the Earth is automatically taken into account in the relation dS/S = 4 dT/T (S is irradiance). Regardless, the solar cycle effect on the climate is 0.1 degree. Ozone, UV, solar wind, etc are a small part of that 0.1 degree.There are feedbacks, and I claim that there are not equal to zero.
The feedbacks work mostly to keep the temperature constant [the ‘thermostat’]. This has prevented a run-away over billions of years, in spite of large changes both in the Sun and the Earth.Integrating those over time has effect, I think
Except that the ‘integration’ does not work in explaining the observations, apart from a lack of explanation of how that would work: how long the integration interval? careful picking of ‘normalization’ offset and other shenanigans.

Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 11:01 amCome on now, we are talking about leads and lags.
With suitable leads, lags, and offsets one can fit anything.One can not simply dismiss that the integral of the changes in energy of the sun is the argument, as you can see it is quite a strong indication.
The integral of changes of a series is just the series itself. And, no, there is no good correlation, and correlation is not causation anyway.Don’t you think exploration in this area would be important for advancing our understanding of climate?
No, not at all. This is just a convenient way of pushing an agenda.

lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 11:08 am
Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:54 am
A sensor that measures radiated energy needs to be able to absorb all of that energy, and reflect none of it. It needs to capture all of the energy. It needs to be perfectly all-inclusive. The Earth does not capture all of the energy, of course. The energy captured by the earth changes all the time, of course. Some of the changes in the earth’s reflectivity change in response to varying wavelengths shining on it.
The albedo of the Earth is automatically taken into account in the relation dS/S = 4 dT/T (S is irradiance). Regardless, the solar cycle effect on the climate is 0.1 degree. Ozone, UV, solar wind, etc are a small part of that 0.1 degree.
Mario===> I did not know you have documented the specific contribution varying ozone has on temperature.
There are feedbacks, and I claim that there are not equal to zero.
The feedbacks work mostly to keep the temperature constant [the ‘thermostat’]. This has prevented a run-away over billions of years, in spite of large changes both in the Sun and the Earth.
Mario===> That is the point… Quantify “mostly constant.” That part minus the mostly is what we are all looking for. If some change in frequency can change the albedo, or chemical makeup of the atmosphere, then even at constant TSI, there would be changes in energy balance. It’s undeniable, just perhaps not quantifiable to a specific feedback.
Mario===>There has been no disagreement on the idea of runaway feedback mechanisms.
Leif===>Integrating those over time has effect, I think
Except that the ‘integration’ does not work in explaining the observations, apart from a lack of explanation of how that would work:
how long the integration interval? careful picking of ‘normalization’ offset and other shenanigans.
Mario===> Yes – “how long the interval”, and leads and lags are of course topics of a study which I would love to see someone do. Integrating the 0.1K over sustained waning is the only way to account for it. Looking at TSI and temperature change in the same time domain without considering the leads/lags and integrative effects is of little value.
Put a lit cigarette in someone’s mouth and claim that as proof there’s no link between smoking and lung cancer because the cancer did not show up while they were smoking. Guess at a lag of 1 year, 5 years 30 years and you’ll start to finding some links.

Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 12:00 pmMario===> I did not know you have documented the specific contribution varying ozone has on temperature.
Since the solar cycle variation of temperature is 0.1K, that due to ozone alone is smaller.Mario===> That is the point… Quantify “mostly constant.”
The solar output has varied by more than 20% over time, but the temperature has remained within the limits that were tolerable to life [and liquid water], i.e. perhaps 10 degrees.
i>Mario===> Integrating the 0.1K over sustained waning is the only way to account for it.
That is a circular argument. Since it must be the Sun, you must integrate [the only way to account for it].

Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 12:00 pm
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 11:08 am
Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:54 am
A sensor that measures radiated energy needs to be able to absorb all of that energy,…
————————
Let’s say that during times of higher solar activity, the sun produces, solar cosmic rays.
Let’s say that during times of lower solar activity, the sun interacts instead with galactic cosmic rays.
What does the sensor see/do with cosmic rays striking it?
The continued..flux of GCR.
During a ‘normal?’ solar cycle, we would be seeing a decrease in cosmic rays at solar maximum.
Because this cycle is low we now have a period 2005-present at high levels maintained higher level.
No, big swing down for a half a cycle.
Solar cycle 25 is expected to be lower than 24. The Galactic cosmic rays are to remain at higher levels.
Increased flux in the atmosphere, riding in with little solar spurts and sputters…
page 5
Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) reached record intensities during the last solar minimum, and their intensity during the current maximum is higher than in previous cycleshttp://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/files/2013/12/SEPs-Giacalone.pdf
Then there is the problem with POES and the electron flux at the ground so much higher than what POES was seeing.
How many other satellites might have a problem with being in the wrong location, outside the optimum of the bounce loss cone?
Other planets, interplanetary space, the size of the heliosphere is still undergoing a change.

Carla says:
January 16, 2014 at 5:01 pmLet’s say that during times of higher solar activity, the sun produces, solar cosmic rays.
Let’s say that during times of lower solar activity, the sun interacts instead with galactic cosmic rays.
What does the sensor see/do with cosmic rays striking it?
nothing, because the energy of the cosmic ray flux is extremely small.During a ‘normal?’ solar cycle, we would be seeing a decrease in cosmic rays at solar maximum.
Because this cycle is low we now have a period 2005-present at high levels maintained higher level.
No, big swing down for a half a cycle.
The cosmic rays are behaving normally: http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic-Rays-1956-Present.pngThen there is the problem with POES and the electron flux at the ground so much higher than what POES was seeing.
No, you are misinterpreting the paper reporting on this. Plus that the electrons do not reach the ground in the first place.Other planets, interplanetary space, the size of the heliosphere is still undergoing a change.
The size of the heliosphere has no impact on the Sun or the Earth.
All your alarmism is misplaced and rooted in misunderstood observations.

lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 5:46 pm
Carla says:
January 16, 2014 at 5:01 pm
What does the sensor see/do with cosmic rays striking it?
nothing, because the energy of the cosmic ray flux is extremely small.
————————————–
Above a certain mega electron volt level, not even the sun can see its energy, only feels it. Then there are terra and pata electron volts of GCR energy and some greater, but that might get unholy.
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 5:46 pm
The cosmic rays are behaving normally: http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic-Rays-1956-Present.png——————————
The new average Dr. S. To continue over a prolonged period of time… hello…
page 5
Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) reached record intensities during the last solar minimum, and their intensity during the current maximum is higher than in previous cycleshttp://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/files/2013/12/SEPs-Giacalone.pdf
—————————————–
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 5:46 pm
No, you are misinterpreting the paper reporting on this. Plus that the electrons do not reach the ground in the first place.
Do you mean this paper?
Tuesday, 10 September, 2013
Comparison between POES energetic electron precipitation observations and riometer absorptions; implications for determining true precipitation fluxeshttp://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/67865/4/preprint.pdf
Craig J. Rodger
Department of Physics, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Andrew J. Kavanagh and Mark A. Clilverd
British Antarctic Survey (NERC), Cambridge, United Kingdom
Steve R. Marple
Department of Physics, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom
…”””Abstract. Energetic Electron Precipitation (EEP) impacts the chemistry of the middle atmosphere with growing evidence that it couples to surface temperatures at high latitudes. To better understand this link it is essential to have realistic observations to properly characterise precipitation and which can be incorporated into chemistry-climate models. The Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES) detectors measure precipitating particles but only integral fluxes and only in a fraction of the bounce loss cone.
Ground based riometers respond to precipitation from the whole bounce loss cone; they measure the cosmic radio noise absorption (CNA); a qualitative proxy with scant direct information on the energy-flux of EEP. POES observations should have a direct relationship with ΔCNA and comparing the two will clarify their utility in studies of atmospheric change.
We determined ionospheric changes produced by the EEP measured by the POES spacecraft in ~250 overpasses of an imaging riometer in northern Finland. The ΔCNA modeled from the POES data is
10-15 times less than the observed ΔCNA when the >30 keV flux is reported as <10 6 cm-2sec-1sr-1. Above this level there is relatively good agreement between the space-based and ground-based measurements.
The discrepancy occurs mostly during periods of low geomagnetic activity and we contend that weak
diffusion is dominating the pitch angle scattering into the bounce loss cone at these times.
A correction to the calculation using measurements of the trapped flux improves the discrepancy considerably and provides further support to our hypothesis that weak diffusion leads to underestimates of the EEP…"""
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 5:46 pm
All your alarmism is misplaced and rooted in misunderstood observations.
——————————-
Not alarmism Dr. S., but a concern that we have a lot of problems wrong with the data that is being disseminated into these climate, these climate, these climate…never mind.

Not alarmism Dr. S., but a concern that we have a lot of problems wrong with the data that is being disseminated into, STUFF like this..
New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return!

Some numbers for you to play with Dr. S., cause something is missing in all these analysis..density anomalies…
…”””According to Emmert and colleagues, low solar EUV accounts for about 30% of the collapse. Extra CO2 accounts for at least another 10%. That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for….”””
Do you recall the following article?
A Puzzling Collapse of Earth’s Upper Atmospherehttp://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/
…”””The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009—a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers. The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low. In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.
“Something is going on that we do not understand,” says Emmert.
…”But the numbers don’t quite add up,” says Emmert. “Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates as a coolant, we cannot fully explain the thermosphere’s collapse.”
According to Emmert and colleagues, low solar EUV accounts for about 30% of the collapse. Extra CO2 accounts for at least another 10%. That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for.
In their GRL paper, the authors acknowledge that the situation is complicated. There’s more to it than just solar EUV and terrestrial CO2. For instance, trends in global climate could alter the composition of the thermosphere, changing its thermal properties and the way it responds to external stimuli. The overall sensitivity of the thermosphere to solar radiation could actually be increasing.
“The density anomalies,” they wrote, “may signify that an as-yet-unidentified climatological tipping point involving energy balance and chemistry feedbacks has been reached.”
Or not….”””

Carla says:
January 16, 2014 at 6:17 pmAbove a certain mega electron volt level, not even the sun can see its energy, only feels it. Then there are terra and pata electron volts of GCR energy and some greater, but that might get unholy.
As always, you have no sense of proportions. Those high energy particles are so rare that they don’t add up to anything that can be measured or felt.Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) reached record intensities during the last solar minimum, and their intensity during the current maximum is higher than in previous cycles
Have a look for yourself. The intensity is not higher than at some earlier minima.“No, you are misinterpreting the paper reporting on this. Plus that the electrons do not reach the ground in the first place.” Do you mean this paper?
Yes, of course, as the paper says: “Above this level there is relatively good agreement between the space-based and ground-based measurements” The discrepancy was for a small part of the lowest energy particles. No importance in the grand scheme of things.Not alarmism Dr. S., but a concern that we have a lot of problems wrong with the data that is being disseminated into these climate, these climate, these climate…never mind.
Properly assessed there is no problem with this. Misinterpreted by people who have the need to do so, the data bothers them. But this is not really important for the more sober of us.…”But the numbers don’t quite add up,” says Emmert. “Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates as a coolant, we cannot fully explain the thermosphere’s collapse.”
So, they have to work a bit on their models and update their understanding and refrain from the usual NASA hype [=’send more money’]For instance, trends in global climate could alter the composition of the thermosphere, changing its thermal properties and the way it responds to external stimuli
some advertising for AGW that you happily spread around.

lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:10 pm
Have a look for yourself. The intensity is not higher than at some earlier minima.
———————
Except Dr. S. its solar max, so maybe you should take another look..
The new average Dr. S. To continue over a prolonged period of time… hello…
page 5
Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) reached record intensities during the last solar minimum, and their intensity during the current maximum is higher than in previous cycleshttp://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/files/2013/12/SEPs-Giacalone.pdf
All the little straws add up to break the camels back..
Good night..

Carla says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:17 pmAll the little straws add up to break the camels back.
Camels eat straws. The straws seem to bolster your alarmism to the point where you even begin to believe [some] NASA press releases rather than your own eyes.

PS – Leif: Thank you for engaging. It was fun, and your candor and patience is appreciated to this neophyte.
PS – I resisted tossing in the whole cosmic rays ionizing effect that purports to cause water droplet condensation at low altitudes yada yada… though, the hypothesis seems interesting, I do not know much about it.

If the Solar Funk in activity is causing the flattening out of Global Temps, then the 90,000 previous years of the last Ice Age should also show weak Solar Activity in the proxies.
Does it?
And the same should also hold true for all the Ice Ages.
Which would imply 10,000 years of high Solar Activity followed by 90,000 to 100,000 years of low Solar Activity.
This theory digs a hole ever deepening. I’m not sure that they are able to successfully toss the dirt out of the hole, being so far down it. Yes, that is a silly way of looking at things, but then so is the act that the theory requires of believers.

Carla says:
January 16, 2014 at 5:01 pm
Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 12:00 pm
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 11:08 am
Mario Lento says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:54 am
A sensor that measures radiated energy needs to be able to absorb all of that energy,…
————————
Mario, I don’t have any faith in the TSI being used in these climate studies. We keep being told that it doesn’t vary enough over solar cycle. What happens when solar activity is low, more GCR. So what about the effect of an increase in GCR striking the sensors, at the time in solar cycle when we should be seeing the largest decreases in the TSI. By the following definition GCR are qualifiers for sensor disruption to the TSI measurements.
Examples of Radiant Energy
The term radiant energy refers to energy that travels by waves or particles, particularly electromagnetic radiation such as heat or x-rays. Radiant energy is created through electromagnetic waves and was discovered in 1885 by Sir William Crookes. Fields in which this terminology is most often used are telecommunications, heating, radiometry, lighting, and in terms of energy created from the sun. Radiant energy is measured in joules.
Understanding Radiant Energy
Radiant energy is a form of kinetic energy. Kinetic energy refers to the movement of the energy whether is is of atoms, molecules, waves, substances or objects. Other forms of kinetic energy include thermal energy, sound, motion energy and electrical energy. Without radiant energy, like that from the sun, life on Earth would not be possible.
Radiant energy is the result of a change in configuration of electrons. It can travel through any substance including air, liquid, glass, and space. However, matter is not necessary for transmission of radiant energy. Even in a vacuum environment, radiant energy can move.
Radiant energy moves in a straight line at a very high speed and can be absorbed, transmitted or reflected. Radiant energy is reflected if the object receiving the energy cannot absorb it. If the energy is only partially able to penetrate the object, then it is absorbed. The energy is transmitted if an object cannot absorb it.
All of these examples help to better explain the important concept of radiant energy.http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples/examples-of-radiant-energy.html
lsvalgaard says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:23 pm
Carla says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:17 pm
Except Dr. S. its solar max, so maybe you should take another look..
Cosmic rays maximize at minimum, and you probably didn’t even look at:http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic-Rays-1956-Present.png
——–
Yes I did. The same graph was used in:
page 5
Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) reached record intensities during the last solar minimum, and their intensity during the current maximum is higher than in previous cycleshttp://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/files/2013/12/SEPs-Giacalone.pdf
Except for the line indicating the average over solar cycles for GCR between the highs and lows. Cycle 24 is defining for us a new average within a solar cycle. GCR will not be declining to the prior low levels as they would usually do for a solar max.
With respect to the lowering of Earth’s Atmosphere, and the missing DENSITY, GCR, electron fluxes are in the running for the missing density anomaly.
Don’t try and read so much into these things DR. S.

rbateman says:
January 17, 2014 at 2:00 pm
If the Solar Funk in activity is causing the flattening out of Global Temps, then the 90,000 previous years of the last Ice Age should also show weak Solar Activity in the proxies.
Does it?
—————–
maybe it goes into helicopter mode? Strange looking kinda of accretion cycling, helicopter mode. Hmm sorta of asymmetry effect perhaps. So many astrosphere’s out there all doing similar things…

Carla says:
January 17, 2014 at 5:01 pmMario, I don’t have any faith in the TSI being used in these climate studies. We keep being told that it doesn’t vary enough over solar cycle. What happens when solar activity is low, more GCR. So what about the effect of an increase in GCR striking the sensors, at the time in solar cycle when we should be seeing the largest decreases in the TSI. By the following definition GCR are qualifiers for sensor disruption to the TSI measurements.
Cosmic rays are not ‘radiant energy’. The name ‘rays’ is a holdover from a hundred years ago, when they didn’t know what cosmic rays are [particles, not rays]. The energy of the particles [cosmic rays] hitting the sensors is so small that it cannot be measured.GCR will not be declining to the prior low levels as they would usually do for a solar max
Sure they will when solar maxima are large again in some 70 years. The cycle change in cosmic rays is BTW tiny, only a few percent, e.g. from 4500 counts to 4150 counts. As even the 4500 counts cannot be measured in terms of total energy, so the change down to 4150 will be even less measurable.
Your alarmism is totally misplaced.

Carla says:
January 17, 2014 at 5:01 pm
Mario, I don’t have any faith in the TSI being used in these climate studies. We keep being told that it doesn’t vary enough over solar cycle. What happens when solar activity is low, more GCR. So what about the effect of an increase in GCR striking the sensors, at the time in solar cycle when we should be seeing the largest decreases in the TSI. By the following definition GCR are qualifiers for sensor disruption to the TSI measurements.
++++++++++
Carla, when you hear of cosmic rays and climate related to a waning sun, the cosmic rays are NOT claimed to be a significant source of energy. The hypothesis was something like this (and I am too lazy to look it up for you). During times where sun spot activity is very low, the the sun’s affect on our magnetosphere is such that it blocks fewer cosmic rays. More cosmic rays then pass throughto our atmosphere and are said to ionize particles which causes seed nucleation of water vapor which increases the albido of the earth. So – weak sun = slightly less TSI reaching past clouds. So when the sun is weaker, the earth is supposed to cool more than in proportion to just the TSI.
To me, this sounds plausible. But I do not have enough information to verify whether the hypothesis has been validated.

Cosmogenic isotopes such as 10Be are spallation products of GCRs impacting on
atmospheric oxygen, nitrogen, and argon. The time series of 10Be abundance stored in reservoirs such as ice sheets and ocean sediments and of 14C from tree trunks show the 11 year cycle of the sunspot number. This makes sense physically since high sunspot numbers correspond to a
strong solar magnetic field, which is the source of the field in the heliosphere that (by virtue of both its strength and its structure) shields the Earth from GCRs.

{emphasis mine}
Recalling your comment to Carla just above about the tiny GCR flux, I thought, with narrowing eyes, “‘Shields the Earth from GCR’s? Makes GCR’s sound quite powerful (to a non-scientist like I); I’m going to ask Leif Svalgaard if such a statement indicates that this paper is a bunch of garbage so I don’t waste my time reading the next 50 pages or so.”So, my question is:
Is a paper that talks about the GC “rays” in that manner likely to be worth my time?
(I’m reading it to find out more about how UV atmospheric chemistry, for Mario Lento’s thoughtful questions along those lines have got me wondering…)
Thank you for taking the time to read this (and to answer, if my question is posed such that a rational response is even possible),
Janice

Janice Moore says:
January 17, 2014 at 8:38 pmstrong solar magnetic field, which is the source of the field in the heliosphere that (by virtue of both its strength and its structure) shields the Earth from GCRs
The paper is a good read. Don’t give up on it. As for the shielding: The incredibly weak solar magnetic field [at the Earth’s distance it is 10,000 times weaker than the Earth’s field, and in the outer heliosphere where most of the shielding takes place the solar field is another 100 times weaker still] will cause some of the low-energy cosmic ray particles to be diverted away from the inner heliosphere [where we are]. For the high-energy cosmic rays [that are supposed to influence our climate] that shielding is very weak [a few percent], so one would not expect any significant causal effect. E.g. at the Thule station in northern Greenland the cosmic ray count rate changes from 4500 counts per hour at solar minimum to typically 4150 counts at solar maximum. Not much a shielding in my book.

Oh, hurrah, for such a quick reply! Thank you, Dr. Svalgaard, for taking the time to give me such a thorough and thoughtful answer.
Okay (blast!!!) now, I will go read the next 49 pages (and it isn’t easy when you don’t have a background in physics — I–CAN–TELL–YOU). Despite my grumbling, I’m actually glad to learn more.Thank you!
Janice

It has been a week since anyone was here….. so, I’m going to quietly use the bulletin board in this darkened classroom to post my little “Happy Birthday to me” message.
Before another week is gone, I will have started on my next 365-day journey around the Sun! And, following OssQss’s wise advice to us all about a week ago, I will do my best to “make it a good one!” Carpe diem!
With gratitude for all the “grace that brought me safe, thus far,” and with joy in the hope of the promise that “grace will see me Home,” I post my favorite version of this hymn (bagpipes, even!), just to play all alone after the class has long gone, because it, of all songs is what I (along with many, many, others) would call, “my song:”“Amazing Grace” — Il DivoSoli Deo Gloria
#(:))

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy